Title
Villariasa-Riesenbeck vs. Abarrientos
Case
A.C. No. 6238
Decision Date
Nov 4, 2004
Lawyer neglected client’s case, failed to file appeal, and withheld critical updates, resulting in loss of appeal rights; suspended for 4 months and ordered to refund fees.
lawyer suspension
refund
neglect of duty

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6238)

Facts and Events Leading to the Complaint

Complainant asserted that respondent was retained to prepare a Motion for Reconsideration. She paid P5,000 for the motion and, based on their understanding, she would pay another P5,000 if it became necessary to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court. She further alleged that respondent, without waiting for the resolution of the motion and barely a day after filing it, required the second payment, which she delivered as agreed. Respondent then directed complainant to secure certified true copies of the Court of Appeals adverse decision.

Complainant claimed that she complied and traveled to Manila on March 23, 2000 to obtain the certified copies at respondent’s request. Thereafter, respondent failed to apprise her of the status of the case. Complainant alleged that respondent never even called her landlady’s phone number, which she had provided. As the appeal period loomed, complainant and her husband, Johannes, made multiple visits to respondent in May 2000 to inquire whether a resolution had arrived. When Johannes left for Holland, he continued to write and call from abroad, and complainant followed up independently in June 2000.

Complainant said that when she eventually heard that a resolution had arrived, it was Johannes who informed her. In the first week of June 2000, Johannes called from Holland, and respondent allegedly told him that a resolution denying the motion had already arrived. Respondent allegedly also stated that a Motion for Extension of Time to File the Petition had been filed with the Supreme Court. Complainant said she was surprised because respondent had not told her about either the resolution or the supposed motion extension, even though she had repeatedly visited respondent during the last week of May and early June.

Complainant returned to respondent’s office on June 23, June 27, and June 30, 2000, to obtain a copy of the resolution and to follow up on the petition she believed respondent was already preparing. Complainant claimed that respondent never gave her a copy and continued to assure her that the petition would be filed on time. On July 3, 2000, respondent allegedly told her that the petition was ready to be filed the next day. Yet, when complainant went to respondent’s office on July 4, 2000, respondent disclosed that the period to file the petition had already expired. Respondent allegedly confessed that he received the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration on April 18, 2000, which caused complainant to burst into tears given that she had already lost her hopes due to respondent’s failure.

Respondent’s Account in His Answer

In his Answer dated November 14, 2000, respondent denied lack of diligence and insisted that he tried to reach complainant promptly after receiving the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration on April 18, 2000. He claimed that his secretaries called complainant several times using the phone number she had provided and that he repeatedly sent messengers to her house in Humay-humay, Lapu-lapu City, but complainant supposedly did not come.

Respondent admitted that complainant only appeared at his office on June 23, 2000, which he described as long after the period to appeal lapsed. He asserted that he blamed complainant for coming late and indicated that, even had she arrived earlier, he would have advised her to look for another lawyer because he believed filing the petition was futile. He also claimed he warned that filing a petition that merely reiterated the arguments in the motion for reconsideration could expose him to contempt. He said he told complainant to inform her husband accordingly.

Respondent further alleged that complainant had agreed with him and had lost interest in the case, although she later returned and insisted on filing a petition. He stated that he refused to file a petition after being asked within the period for appeal because he was of the view it would be unmeritorious. He also claimed that he had already apprised complainant and her husband from the start that further appeal would likely fail, but he simultaneously admitted agreeing to file the Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent conceded instructing complainant to secure certified true copies of the Court of Appeals decision. However, he denied instructing her to go to Manila to obtain them and denied telling Johannes in early June 2000 that a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition had been filed with the Supreme Court.

IBP Findings and Recommended Sanction

Complainant, in her Reply, controverted respondent’s assertions by invoking a Joint Affidavit executed by Nesa Y. Bentulan, the landlady, and Marilyn Baay, the housemaid. These affiants stated that they did not receive any phone calls or personal visits from respondent or his personnel. Complainant contended that respondent’s personnel should have contacted these persons because the phone number she had provided belonged to Bentulan and because the messenger would have to speak with the occupants of the compound where complainant lived.

After investigation, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline found respondent to have violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In Resolution No. XVI-2003-173, dated September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and recommended to the Supreme Court that respondent be suspended for four months. The IBP likewise recommended that respondent refund P5,000, the amount complainant alleged she paid for the petition for review. The IBP’s recommendations were treated as supported by the proven facts and the documentary evidence.

The Court’s Evaluation of Evidence and Duties of Counsel

The Court accepted the IBP’s recommendations, holding that the evidence contradicted respondent’s claim that his sole obligation was limited to filing the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court gave weight to the official receipts respondent himself issued for the partial payments.

The first receipt, dated February 24, 2000, stated that the P5,000 payment was for “Partial Payment for Preparation of Motion for Reconsideration & eventually Petition for Review to the Supreme Court” and described the balance as P5,000 to be paid upon the filing of the motion and another P5,000 “to be paid on or before October 30, 2000.” The second receipt, dated March 4, 2000, likewise stated that it was for “Additional Partial Payment for the Preparation of Motion for Reconsideration & Petition for Review case,” with the balance to be paid upon submission of the petition for review to the Supreme Court. The Court treated the wording of these receipts as demonstrating that respondent bound himself to prepare not only the Motion for Reconsideration but also the petition for review, if warranted. The Court also treated respondent’s instruction, as early as March 2000, for complainant to secure certified true copies of the adverse decision as consistent with the obligation to elevate the matter.

On respondent’s claim of attempts to contact complainant, the Court found the explanation unbelievable and materially insufficient. Respondent did not attempt to write complainant by registered mail to inform her that he already received the denial. The Court reasoned that such a letter would have been the simplest means to protect himself if complainant was truly unreachable. The Court also accorded greater credibility to the joint affidavit of disinterested persons (the landlady and housemaid), who averred that no calls or visits with messages were made. The Court concluded that respondent invented a scenario to explain his negligence.

The Court emphasized that once a lawyer undertakes a client’s cause, the lawyer must render fidelity with competence and diligence, and must champion the client’s interest. It invoked Canon 17, which requires a lawyer to be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, and Canon 18, which obliges service with competence and diligence. The Court further referenced Rule 18.03, stating that a lawyer shall not neglect legal matters entrusted to him and that negligence creates liability. It also invoked Canon 19 regarding representation with zeal within the bounds of law. The Court underscored that the client is entitled to remedies and defenses authorized by law and that until proper withdrawal occurs, the lawyer is expected to do the best for the client’s interest.

The Court found respondent’s negligence aggravated by lack of candor. It held that respondent concealed from complainant that he had already received the resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration on April 18, 2000, despite complainant’s repeated visits. It also held that respondent made complainant believe the petition would be filed on time. The Court stressed that a lawyer must not keep a client in the dark about the status and developments of the client’s case and must respond within a reasonable time to requests for information. It added that full disclosure is required regarding the mode and manner by which the client’s interests are defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted. It further held that repeated failure to answer communications violates professional courtesy and neglects the client’s interests.

Grave Prejudice, Legal Outcome,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms